CHURCH VS STATE

In one of my classes this semester we recently gave oral presentations on issues of our own choosing. I was one of three that chose the issue of marriage. I was rather disappointed in the other two speakers, I get that way when I encounter people that do not seem open to multiple points of view. Of course I could be wrong about them and I hope I am, but their presentations came across as a challenge to their opposition. Instead of welcoming a productive discussion it seemed they were entrenched on their side and insulting what they portrayed as the only reason for the existence of opposition. Such discussions are hardly productive and I believe at the heart of the very issue being in such bitter a conflict as it is.

This was my presentation:

Since before my time there has been a variety of arguments in our country concerning the separation of Church and State Most recently this has had a significant revival on the subject of marriage. Some say that marriage is an inalienable right to all people regardless of circumstances, while others say it is a sacred privilege that is not to be altered or mocked. Who has the final say on the issue of marriage, Church or State? Is there a common ground for both?

I am interested in this matter because my home state seems to have become the main battleground of this conflict. I have participated in not one but two votes on the matter, paid close attention to legal challenges that followed, and have close family members, as well as friends, on both sides of the issue. The matter has often weighed heavily on my mind because I see serious pros and cons to both, and like everyone else I cannot accurately predict what will happen with either victory. There is only speculation. It also bothers me how extreme people on both sides have gone in their references for the motives and mannerisms of their opponents.

The Constitution’s, and its subsequent amendments’, language has been interpreted in so many different ways by so many different people making it of no help in resolving this conflict. Ultimately the Supreme Court has the final say on how the Constitution’s language is to be interpreted, but as yet they have not gotten involved.

In the past, regulations and requirements for marriage have been left to the sovereignty of the States in the US, but recently the Federal Government has begun to supersede this tradition. Additionally the United Nations has declared marriage to be an inalienable right. With this in mind it is clear that the State has declared the subject of marriage to be its territory, and it is therefore understandable why people would be upset by Church crossing the line and trying to interfere. However, it is important to note that State crossed that line first. Marriage has been around a lot longer than marriage licenses, paperwork, business days, and blood tests.

I propose a happy middle ground that I believe can be found by indeed keeping Church and State separate:

Allow Churches to regulate marriage by the dictates of their own faith and rules without any interference from the State. This would mean no more marriage licenses, the only authority two people need is from their pastor, bishop, priest, whatever, or his superiors if there be any. This would also mean an end to all tax credits, benefits, or inheritance rights currently afforded by the State to married couples. Marriage would once again be a private matter between spouses and whatever higher being they believe in not recognized in any way shape or form by government.

Any and all couples, weather married or not, who want to be recognized by the State can apply for a civil union. Now we already have these so some changes should be made. These unions can be a right, and therefore everybody could enter into such a union with anybody they want. These unions would grant the tax credits, benefits, inheritance rights and whatever other things the State decides.

With this, churches will be free to teach their differing views on the morality of marriage, schools will teach the existence of civil unions, and parents would, hopefully, teach their children to do both.